ROAD COMMISSION FOR IONIA COUNTY

of 4

www.masoncountyroads.com

mason county road commission Board of Commissioners 510 E. State St. Bill Schwass, Chairman PO Box 247 Douglas Robidoux, Vice-Chairman Scottville MI 49454-0247 Nick Matiash, Member Office: (231) 757-2882 Fax: (231) 757-2662 Wayne A. Schoonover, P.E., Manager/Director e-mail: [email protected]

November 18, 2016

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR

DESIGN ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

Rehabilitation of: SN 6664

Custer Rd over Pere Marquette River, Custer Township, Mason County

The Mason County Road Commission (MCRC) is seeking proposals for the cost of design engineering and all or some construction engineering and services for rehabilitation of the existing bridge and construction of a new superstructure and approaches with related as-needed abutment and pier repair, and scour assessment. The design must be in accordance with Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) standards and specifications and AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications incorporating HL-93-mod live loading. The proposal must include all necessary work for plan and proposal acceptance by the MCRC and MDOT. LOCATION:

Custer Road over Pere Marquette River is located on Section 21 and Section 22 Line, Custer Twp, T18N, R16W, 1 mile south of the Village of Custer, Mason County.

The original structure was built in 1953 with a superstructure consisting of steel I beam stringers supporting a cast-in-place 7-inch concrete deck with HMA deck resurfacing in 1986. The 1992 bridge rail upgrade is a steel beam guardrail Type B bolted to the original concrete pillar/ornamental steel panels. The bridge piers are concrete pier walls and pier cap. The abutments are vertical concrete. The bridge has a structure length of 165 feet and clear width of 24 feet. There are three spans, each with a length of 54.8 feet. The outside width is 29.2 feet. The Average Daily Traffic in 2015 was 600 with 8% commercial traffic. The bridge is currently posted at 33/38/42 tons. This bridge is not on the eligible historic bridge listing. This project has been approved for the 2018 FY Local Bridge Program. It will be financed with a combination of Federal and Michigan Local Bridge Program Funds and Local Funds. Participation in engineering costs is not included and will be the responsibility of the MCRC. The MCRC and MDOT will be involved in final approval of plans, etc., and acceptance of completed construction.

of 4


At a minimum the following items must be considered and included in the proposal:

1. The plans and specifications shall be developed using the English system and the most current edition of the Michigan Standard Specifications for Construction.

2. Determine in cooperation with the MCRC and MDOT, appropriate design criteria

that will govern all design elements for the approach, superstructure replacement, and if needed abutment repairs, and scour countermeasures.

3. Surveys and field investigation including, but not limited to, surveys for the

design, road alignment, property lines of adjacent riparian owners, river and flood plain cross sections necessary to develop hydraulics for MDEQ permit, underwater inspection, abutment investigation, topography, establish section line alignments and any other needed information designs, analysis, and applications for obtaining information needed for environmental studies, permits, etc. Northing and Easting coordinates shall be in NAD83 Michigan StatePlane Central – International Feet. NAVD88 elevations shall be used. It shall also include the location and staking of all horizontal and vertical control points for construction staking, i.e., benchmarks, POT’s, PC’s, PT’s, PI’s, section and 1/4 section corners with witnesses, etc. Report all control points with Northing, Easting, Elevation, Station and Offset.

4. Soil borings for abutment investigation and capacity analysis, will be the full

responsibility of the consultant and shall be included in the proposal. Soil borings shall be included on the plans and include any gradation test results, shear tests, etc. Soil borings shall be made for each substructure location.

5. Perform necessary hydraulic analysis for any necessary MDEQ permits. 6. Perform necessary scour analysis to determine adequacy of the existing

foundations and piers for stability under a scour event. 7. The Preliminary Design shall include a foundation load analysis for proposed

structure, abutment and pier repairs, scour countermeasures and superstructure replacement. Also, included shall be cost comparison recommendations for alternate designs using AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications incorporating the HL-93-mod live loading for the following types of structures: • Prestressed concrete I-Beams with cast in place deck • Prestressed concrete box beams with cast in place deck • Galvanized steel beam with deck • Alternative recommended structures

8. Preliminary Design shall take into consideration and possibly incorporate within

the design limits, elements of the proposed Village of Custer Non-Motorized Path.

of 4


9. The consultant shall prepare and submit any and all MDOT & FHWA program

applications, design exceptions (if required), all other applications, permits, and reports for environmental, hydraulic analysis, archaeological studies if required, assessments, reviews, etc. as may be required by FHWA, MDOT, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Corps of Engineers, SHPO, County Drain Commissioner, or any other Federal, State, or Local Agency involved in the project.

10. Prepare and submit type, size and location (TS&L) plans using the most current MDOT TS&L requirements list, specifications and an estimate of probable construction costs to the MCRC and MDOT for review, comment and approval. Attend the TS&L meeting, if one is necessary.

11. Prepare Preliminary Plans including engineer’s opinion of cost, special provisions

and additional information required by MDOT. Submit to the MCRC and MDOT for approval. Determine additional right-of-way requirements for the MCRC and prepare property descriptions and documents for any needed grading permits, easements or property acquisition. Provide any necessary staking required for ROW permits, easements or acquisitions. The MCRC will be responsible for appraisals, grading permits, easements and acquisitions of additional ROW.

12. Attend the grade inspection meeting. 13. Prepare Final Design plans, estimate (including electronic MERL) and special

provisions in accordance with the MCRC, MDOT and FHWA recommendations and requirements. Final plans shall be submitted electronically to the MCRC and MDOT for approval. Final electronic plans shall be complete with all necessary information and quantities ready for bid letting by MDOT.

14. Shop drawing review and minor phone consultation during construction-included. 15. If any public hearing is held for the project, the Consultant is expected to prepare

any required information; attend and participate in the hearing.

16. Contact, coordinate with, and inform all utilities. MCRC will provide the consultant a list of utilities and contact information.

17. The proposal shall include: proposed superstructure and scour countermeasure

type assumptions estimated construction cost; and a detailed breakdown of the estimated hours and hourly rates for the various design stages for each proposed superstructure type.

of 4


Construction Engineering and services provided under a separate estimate, to be used in full or partial by the MCRC, shall include at the minimum the following:

1. Construction staking – control and as needed staking.

2. Inspection including storm water and soil erosion and sedimentation control, testing, and pay estimates using Field Manager or approved MDOT software.

3. Construction Engineering – if applicable: pile driving calculations; shop drawing

review; new inspection, load rating, scour analysis and updating of MiBRIDGE; and additional as-needed services.

4. Submit electronic As-Built plans in PDF file format on thumb/jump drive to the MCRC with read-write capabilities for documentation and file history.

Any proposed cost increases for engineering shall be approved by the MCRC before the costs are incurred. Sealed proposals (2 copies) will be received until 2 p.m. on Wednesday, December 21, 2016 at 510 E. State Street, P.O. Box 247, Scottville, Michigan, 49454. Telephone: (231) 757-2882. Faxed proposals will not be accepted. A decision as to whether to make award of the contract will not be made until the Board of County Road Commissioners meet and decide upon further action. This may require approximately one-to-two months before award. Proposed Letting Date for the Bridge Construction Contract is January 2018. Professional liability insurance is required. BOARD OF COUNTY ROAD COMMISSIONERS MASON COUNTY, MICHIGAN Bill Schwass, Chairman Doug Robidoux, Vice Chairman Nick Matiash, Member Wayne A. Schoonover, P.E., Manager/Director PDF copies of this RFP, most recent Structure Inventory and Appraisal Form 1717A, Bridge Safety Inspection Report Form P2502, recent photos, and proposed Village of Custer Non-Motorized Path are available on our website at www.masoncountyroads.com under the “BIDS” tab. Old plans are available at the MCRC office for viewing. For additional information, please contact Wayne A. Schoonover, P.E., Manager/Director, by phone at (231) 757-2882, or by email at [email protected].

http://www.masoncountyroads.com/

mailto:[email protected]

Bridge History, Type, Materials27 - Year Built 1953106 - Year Reconstructed202 - Year Painted 1953203 - Year Overlay 197643 - Main Span Bridge Type 3 0244 - Appr Span Bridge Type77 - Steel Type 178 - Paint Type 979 - Rail Type 480 - Post Type 5107 - Deck Type 1108A - Wearing Surface 6108B - Membrane 0108C - Deck Protection 0

Structure Dimensions34 - Skew 035 - Struct Flared 045 - Num Main Spans 346 - Num Apprs Spans 048 - Max Span Length 54.849 - Structure Length 16550A - Width Left Curb/SW 050B - Width Right Curb/SW 033 - Median 051 - Width Curb to Curb 2452 - Width Out to Out 29.2112 - NBIS Length Y

Inspection Data90 - Inspection Date 06/20/201691 - Inspection Freq 1292A - Frac Crit Req/Freq N93A - Frac Crit Insp Date92B - Und Water Req/Freq N93B - Und Water Insp Date92C - Oth Spec Insp Req/Freq N93C - Oth Spec Insp Date92D - Fatigue Req/Freq N93D - Fatigue Insp Date176A - Und Water Insp Method 358 - Deck Rating 458A/B - Deck Surface/Bottom 3 459 - Superstructure Rating 359A - Paint Rating 360 - Substructure Rating 761 - Channel Rating 662 - Culvert Rating N

Navigation Data38 - Navigation Control 039 - Vertical Clearance 040 - Horizontal Clearance 0111 - Pier Protection116 - Lift Brdg Vert Clear

Route Carried By Structure(ON Record)5A - Record Type 15B - Route Signing 45C - Level of Service 05D - Route Number 053515E - Direction Suffix 010L - Best 3m Unclr-Lt 0 010R - Best 3m Unclr-Rt 99 99 PR Number Control Section11 - Mile Point12 - Base Highway Network 013 - LRS Route-Subroute 0000002179 0519 - Detour Length 920 - Toll Facility 326 - Functional Class 0728A - Lanes On 229 - ADT 160030 - Year of ADT 199732 - Appr Roadway Width 32.232A/B - Ap Pvt Type/Width 4 31.9942A - Service Type On 147L - Left Horizontal Clear 0.047R - Right Horizontal Clear 24.053 - Min Vert Clr Ov Deck 99 99100 - STRAHNET 0102 - Traffic Direct 2109 - Truck % 10110 - Truck Network 0114 - Future ADT 2000115 - Year Future ADT 2017 Freeway 0

Structure Appraisal36A - Bridge Railing 136B - Rail Transition 136C - Approach Rail 136D - Rail Termination 167 - Structure Evaluation 368 - Deck Geometry 469 - Underclearance N71 - Waterway Adequacy 872 - Approach Alignment 7103 - Temporary Structure113 - Scour Criticality 5

Miscellaneous37 - Historical Significance 598A - Border Bridge State98B - Border Bridge %101 - Parallel Structure N EPA ID Stay in Place Forms143 - Pin & Hanger Code148 - No. of Pin & Hangers -1

Route Under Structure (UNDER Record)5A - Record Type5B - Route Signing5C - Level of Service5D - Route Number5E - Direction Suffix10L - Best 3m Unclr-Lt10R - Best 3m Unclr-Rt PR Number Control Section11 - Mile Point12 - Base Highway Network13 - LRS Route-Subroute19 - Detour Length20 - Toll Facility26 - Functional Class28B - Lanes Under29 - ADT30 - Year of ADT42B - Service Type Under 547L - Left Horizontal Clear47R - Right Horizontal Clear54A - Left Feature54B - Left Underclearance 99 9954C - Right Feature54D - Right Clearance 99 99 Under Clearance Year -155A - Reference Feature N55B - Right Horiz Clearance 99.956 - Left Horiz Clearance 0100 - STRAHNET102 - Traffic Direct109 - Truck %110 - Truck Network114 - Future ADT115 - Year Future ADT Freeway

Proposed Improvements75 - Type of Work76 - Length of Improvement94 - Bridge Cost95 - Roadway Cost96 - Total Cost97 - Year of Cost Estimate

Load Rating and Posting31 - Design Load 641 - Open, Posted, Closed P63 - Fed Oper Rtg Method 664F - Fed Oper Rtg Load 1.0164MA - Mich Oper Rtg Method 664MB - Mich Oper Rtg .864MC - Mich Oper Truck 2165 - Inv Rtg Method 666 - Inventory Load .6170 - Posting 2141 - Posted Loading 333842193 - Overload Class

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

STR 6664 STRUCTURE INVENTORY AND APPRAISAL

Facility Latitude / Longitude MDOT Structure ID Structure ConditionCUSTER ROAD 43.9373 / -86.219 53200019000B010 Serious Condition(3)Feature Length / Width OwnerPERE MARQUETTE RIVER 165 / 29.2 County: Mason(53)Location Built / Recon. / Paint / Ovly. TSC Operational Status1.0 MI S OF CUSTER 1953 / / 1953 / 1976 Muskegon(21) P Posted for load(P)Region / County Material / Design Last NBI Inspection Scour EvaluationGrand(3) / Mason(53) 3 Steel / 02 Stringer/Girder 06/20/2016 / 7OYS 5 Stable w/in footing

Form 1717A (01/2002) Printed on 11/15/2016 Page 1 of 1

NBI INSPECTION 7OYS

Inspector Name Agency / Company Name Insp. Freq. Insp. Date

James Nordlund Nordlund and Associates, Inc 12 06/20/2016

GENERAL NOTES

Due to continues deterioration of steel stringers an in depth inspection is recommended.

Posting Signs in Place YES

DECK

06/14 06/15 06/16

1. Surface(SIA-58A)

3 3 3 The HMA is deteriorating over the expansion joints (HMA @ North joint in poorest condition)and at the north end of the bridge. There are holes in the bitt that expose the top of theconcrete deck. (06/16)The HMA is deteriorating over the expansion joints (HMA @ North joint in poorest condition)and at the north end of the bridge. There are holes in the bitt that expose the top of theconcrete deck. (06/15)The HMA is deteriorating over the expansion joints (HMA @ North joint in poorest condition)and at the north end of the bridge. There are holes in the bitt that expose the top of theconcrete deck. (06/14)

2. ExpansionJoints

0 0 0 Expansion joints are leaking, & have failed. The concrete deck and steel stringers have bothdeteriorated @ the expansion joints. The fascia of the concrete deck is deteriorated & spalledat the expansion joints. (06/16)Expansion joints are leaking, & have failed. The concrete deck and steel stringers have bothdeteriorated @ the expansion joints. The fascia of the concrete deck is deteriorated & spalledat the expansion joints. (06/15)Expansion joints are leaking, & have failed. The concrete deck and steel stringers have bothdeteriorated @ the expansion joints. The fascia of the concrete deck is deteriorated & spalledat the expansion joints. (06/14)

3. OtherJoints

5 5 5 There appears to be a centerline construction joint - that is slightly leaking.Bitt at abutments has settled (06/16)There appears to be a centerline construction joint - that is slightly leaking.Bitt at abutments has settled (06/15)There appears to be a centerline construction joint - that is slightly leaking. (06/14)

4. Railings 5 5 5 Guardrails are double type "B" - bolted to the original concrete pillar/ornamental steelguardrail.The approach guardrail has rotted posts and blocks are split, turned & missing. (06/16)Guardrails are type "B" - bolted to the original concrete pillar/ornamental steel guardrail.The approach guardrail has rotted posts and blocks are split, turned & missing. (06/15)Guardrails are type "B" - bolted to the original concrete pillar/ornamental steel guardrail.The approach guardrail has rotted posts and blocks are split, turned & missing. (06/14)

5. Sidewalksor Curbs

4 N N (06/16) (06/15)The narrow sidewalk -or- wide curb that is present was affected by the installation of the Type""B" Guardrail. The sidewalk is not longer usable. There is spalling occuring at both the insideand outside of the sidewalk/curb/fascia. Badly deteriorated at expansion joints. (06/14)


STR 6664 BRIDGE SAFETY INSPECTION REPORT


Form P2502 Printed on 11/15/2016 Page 1 of 4

6. DeckBottomSurface(SIA-58B)

4 4 4 Leakage through the expansion joints has deteriorated the concrete about 12" - 16" fromeach expansion joint. Scuppers do not have serious spalling occuring - even though the run-off passes through the deck. Some minor leaching is occuring at what appears to be an oldconstruction joint. (06/16)Leakage through the expansion joints has deteriorated the concrete about 12" - 16" fromeach expansion joint. Scuppers do not have serious spalling occuring - even though the run-off passes through the deck. Some minor leaching is occuring at what appears to be an oldconstruction joint. (06/15)Leakage through the expansion joints has deteriorated the concrete about 12" - 16" fromeach expansion joint. Scuppers do not have serious spalling occuring - even though the run-off passes through the deck. Some minor leaching is occuring at what appears to be an oldconstruction joint. (06/14)

7. Deck(SIA-58)

4 4 4 The HMA surface precludes direct inspection of the top surface. Potholes adjacent to theexpansion joint and at the end of the bridge and at each fascia indicate that the deck hasabout 10% of the surface spalled. The deck is spalling and failing at expansion joints. There isa large spall on the upstream face of the north pier. (06/16)The HMA surface precludes direct inspection of the top surface. Potholes adjacent to theexpansion joint and at the end of the bridge and at each fascia indicate that the deck hasabout 10% of the surface spalled. The deck is spalling and failing at expansion joints. There isa large spall on the upstream face of the north pier. (06/15)The HMA surface precludes direct inspection of the top surface. Potholes adjacent to theexpansion joint and at the end of the bridge and at each fascia indicate that the deck hasabout 10% of the surface spalled. The deck is spalling and failing at expansion joints. There isa large spall on the upstream face of the north pier. (06/14)

8. Drainage (06/16) (06/15) (06/14)

SUPERSTRUCTURE

06/14 06/15 06/16

9. Stringer(SIA-59)

3 3 3 The stringers are seriously corroded over the top of each pier - in the vicinity of the expansionjoint. At the north pier-North side - one of the stringers immediately east of the middle has thebottom flanged detached from the web for about 36". There are holes in the stem at theabutment. The stringers on each side of this beam have flaky rust of a similar nature, but thecorrosion has not penetrated completely through the beams yet. The remaining stringers areseriously corroded (up to 50% loss of section) in the vicinity of the expansion joints. At thesouth pier the second stringer from east has a lot of flaky rust and section loss.There are other stringers where the stem is not attached securely to the bottom flange at bothpiers. (06/16)The stringers are seriously corroded over the top of each pier - in the vicinity of the expansionjoint. At the north pier-North side - one of the stringers immediately east of the middle has thebottom flanged detached from the web for about 36". The stringers on each side of this beamhave flaky rust of a similar nature, but the corrosion has not penetrated completely throughthe beams yet. The remaining stringers are seriously corroded (up to 50% loss of section) inthe vicinity of the expansion joints. At the south pier the second stringer from east has a lot offlaky rust and section loss.There are other stringers where the stem is not attached securely to the bottom flange at bothpiers. (06/15)The stringers are seriously corroded over the top of each pier - in the vicinity of the expansionjoint. At the north pier-North side - one of the stringers immediately east of the middle has thebottom flanged detached from the web for about 36". The stringers on each side of this beamhave flaky rust of a similar nature, but the corrosion has not penetrated completely throughthe beams yet. The remaining stringers are seriously corroded (up to 50% loss of section) inthe vicinity of the expansion joints. At the south pier the second stringer from east has a lot offlaky rust and section loss.There are other stringers where the stem is not attached securely to the bottom flange at bothpiers. (06/14)





10. Paint(SIA-59A)

3 3 3 Greater than 20% paint failure. Paint is missing in areas of rust with pinhead failureselsewhere (06/16)Greater than 20% paint failure. Paint is missing in areas of rust with pinhead failureselsewhere (06/15)Greater than 20% paint failure. Paint is missing in areas of rust with pinhead failureselsewhere (06/14)

11. SectionLoss

0 0 N As this item is for section under joints. (06/16)Corrosion has resulted in holes in the stringers near the center of the north pier and thecomplete detachment of the bottom flange from the stem of the stringer north of the northpier. Significant loss of section has occured at the remaining stringers at all piers. (06/15)Corrosion has resulted in holes in the stringers near the center of the north pier and thecomplete detachment of the bottom flange from the stem of the stringer north of the northpier. Significant loss of section has occured at the remaining stringers at all piers. (06/14)

12. Bearings 3 3 4 The abutment bearings are in good condition. The pier bearings are seriously corroded(06/16)The abutment bearings are in good condition. The pier bearings are seriously corroded(06/15)The abutment bearings are in good condition. The pier bearings are seriously corroded(06/14)

SUBSTRUCTURE

06/14 06/15 06/16

13. Abutments(SIA-60)

7 7 7 (06/16) (06/15)Abutments are in good condition (06/14)

14. Piers(SIA-60)

7 7 7 (06/16) (06/15)Piers are in good condition (06/14)

15. SlopeProtection

N 6 6 Slope protection is good on the south side where a new walkway has been constructed. Onthe north side much of the riprap is there even though it is covered with dirt (06/16)Slope protection is good on the south side where a new walkway has been constructed. Onthe north side much of the riprap is there even though it is covered with dirt (06/15)Slope protection from the abutment to the edge of the water is non-existent. Original riprap iseither buried in sand or rolled out into the river. (06/14)

16. Channel(SIA-61)

6 6 6 Channel crosses through the bridge at a 90 degree angle. The water depth is no more at 4'feet under normal flow conditions. Most places are accessible by waders, except in center &at South Pier. (06/16)Channel crosses through the bridge at a 90 degree angle. The water depth is no more at 4'feet under normal flow conditions. Most places are accessible by waders, except in center.(06/15)Channel crosses through the bridge at a 90 degree angle. The water depth is no more at 4'feet under normal flow conditions. Most places are accessible by waders, except in center.(06/14)

17. ScourInspection

7 No observed scour. (06/16) (06/15) (06/14)

APPROACH

06/14 06/15 06/16

18. ApproachPavement

7 5 5 Pavement is in fair to poor condition. North approach has large crack. (06/16)Pavement is in fair to poor condition. North approach has large crack. (06/15)Pavement is in good condition. (06/14)





19. ApproachShouldersSidewalks

7 7 7 Shoulders are wide - moderately sloped with no observed defects. (06/16)Shoulders are wide - moderately sloped with no observed defects. (06/15)Shoulders are wide - moderately sloped with no observed defects. (06/14)

20. ApproachSlopes

(06/16) (06/15) (06/14)

21. Utilities (06/16) (06/15) (06/14)

22. DrainageCulverts

(06/16) (06/15) (06/14)

MISCELLANEOUSGuard Rail Other ItemsItem Rating Item Rating

36A. Bridge Railings 1 71. Water Adequacy 836B. Transitions 1 72. Approach Alignment 736C. Approach Guardrail 1 Temporary Support 0 No Temporary Supports36D. Approach Guardrail Ends 1 High Load Hit (M) No

Special Insp. Equipment 9Underwater Insp. Method 3

False Decking (Timber) Removed to Complete Inspection N/A - No False Decking

Critical Feature Inspections (SIA-92)Freq Date

92A. Fracture Critical92B. Underwater92C. Other Special92D. Fatigue Sensitive





STR 6664 CUSTER RD @ P. M. RIVER LOOKING NORTH

PROFILE LOOKING EAST

STR 6664 CUSTER RD AT P. M. RIVER VIEWS OF EXPANSION JOINT DETERIORATION

STR 6664 CUSTER RD AT PERE MARQUETTE RIVER VIEWS OF STEEL STRINGERS AT NORTH PIER HOLES VISIBLE IN STEM

STR 6664 CUSTER RD @ P. M. RIVER ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF STEEL STRINGERS

ROAD COMMISSION FOR IONIA COUNTY

Documents

Transcript of ROAD COMMISSION FOR IONIA COUNTY